| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
”Ok, but what do you mean by ‘Low Magic’?”
Various definitions of what is Low Magic have been presented in the Define Low Magic, ‘Why Low Magic’ threads.
Following up on these great discussions, I wanted to group the definitions presented and get some feedback and ideas for a comprehensive view of the Low Magic options so far.
Most discussions on low magic on these boards have sparked side discussions on the feasibility, even the relevance, of low magic systems. This is not the objective of this thread.
DEFINING LOW MAGIC
From the discussions on these boards, it seems clear that there are several possible definitions for ‘low magic.’ Based on these, I’ve tried to identify the main categories/dimensions that are used to describe systems and settings.
First, I would argue there are clear three clear dimensions that can be played with to create a Low Magic feel. These are spells, gear, and creatures.
Second, from my readings, DMs have applied modifications in these three dimensions with different consistency. I identified four categories of consistency: arcane and divine, players and setting, locations and periods, mobile or immobile magic.
1. POWER CATEGORIES
DMs can create a Low Magic setting by modifying the power related to magic use in their setting through numerous ways, which I have grouped under spells, gear and fantasy. Numerous combinations of these modifications are possible to meet story needs.
1.1 Spells
What rules are used to limit access to spells for players and in the setting? The following can be used to modify the access to spells.
- Level Demographics (Setting)
What is the distribution of caster classes in the setting? Demographics will impact other dimensions like magic item access, spell access, services (e.g. healing) access, as well as subtly impact how likely the PCs can play spellcasting classes.
- Classes available
Are all spellcasting classes available? For example, you may limit classes to spontaneous casters, or partial casters (like bards and magus), or even only witches.
- Character Level
This is generally referred to as E6 or other variations. The basics of which are that you stop gaining levels at a certain points, but can still gain abilities through feats. Most people have a separate list of capstone feats only available at the end of the level progression. My favourite is E7, but where the last spell level slot is reserved for spells with metamagic (you gain the spell slot, but not the spells of that level).
- Caster Level
Some DMs will not limit level progression, but will instead limit the progression of caster levels. For example, one example mentioned in a discussion thread was for casters to gain 1 caster level per two class levels.
- Spell Level
You can also choose to limit the level of spells available in your setting. For example, you could say that only spells up to level 5 are known in your setting, and that other spell slots gained beyond are only to be used along metamagic.
- Specific Spells
Only banning certain spells is not a big step towards Low Magic in itself, but it might be the fine tuning needed alongside other important changes. For example, many have mentioned how they are uncertain about level four spells in E7 and E8 games. Another example is a DM banning evocation spells. Also, a setting’s reality could make summon spells impossible.
- Healing Access
The healing spells have momentous impact both on the way combat is handled by players and on the general state of your setting. Some DMs have mentioned limiting access to healing magic as a way to reflect the setting and the story they intended to unfold. Thread carefully here…
- Resurrection Access
Somewhat on the High Magic side of things, but access to resurrection spells will also impact the players and the setting in important ways. If Kings can’t be brought back…
- Counter Magic Access
How are spells countered in your setting? If you want magic to be weaker or stronger, you could play with the saves, or with the way spells can be thwarted. For example, carrying on your person a ring of bone will protect you from necromancy (+2 save…), or as a DM mentioned, the Zeitgeist setting has circuits of gold prevent teleportation magic.
- Casting Ease
Some settings require magic to be harder to pull off. Perhaps a roll is needed to cast a spell, or expenditure of life?
- Rituals
I’ve seen two opposite examples of this. In one case, all spells required at least ten minutes to be cast. In another, higher level spells were accessible only as complex and long rituals. This last measure can provide interesting plot devices for certain stories.
1.2 Gear (Magic Items)
All Gear questions are closely tied to spell access, through the use of crafting feats.
- Crafting Arts
Are all the item crafting feats known? Are they available to many? Perhaps theses feats are only accessible for certain classes or prestige classes? Perhaps they were known in a distant past and have been forgotten?
- Big Six Access
Some DMs have equated Low Magic with Big Six Access (flat bonus items: swords and armours, belts and headbands, cloaks of resistance, rings of protection), using expressions like ‘Magic Christmas Trees’. Generally, they also use inherent bonuses by level to provide for the absence of these items.
- Magic Item Availability
Are magic items easily available. Are they for sale? Through individuals, through merchants? In any hamlet?
- Magic Item Ubiquity
Are magic items fairly widespread and used by NPCs or extremely rare? Are commoners using +1 sickle in their field? Ubiquity can also be tied to item level, power or function. for example, you could have a setting where low-power magic items are widespread, but where high-power items are unheard of. Another possibility is a setting where only great works like aqueducts or flying ships and city can be endeavoured (or was done in the distant past).
- Magic Item Power
The maximum power of magic item is tied to other questions like maximum caster level, available spells, and access to crafting arts.
1.3 Creatures
This last category emerged from comments of DMs making a difference between Low Magic and Low Fantasy, using Lord of the Rings as an example of Low Magic, but High Fantasy (while the past Ages were High Magic and High Fantasy). Indeed, the magical nature of the world, the types of creatures available also participate in creating a feeling of overall low or high magic.
- Fantastic Creatures
What types of fantastic creatures roam the world? How common is a sighting of a troll? Of a dragon?
- Fantastic Races Availability
What are the civilized races of the setting? Only humans? Core humanoid races only? Crazy variety? Are fantastic races like dwarves or elves widespread? What percentage of the population do they represent? Are they grouped in countries or cities? Are they seen among humans, or more secretive or xenophobic?
2. DISTINCTIONS
This section is about the consistency of your setting. Are the decisions made regarding the previous categories applied the same way or differently throughout your setting.
2.1 Arcane and Divine Magic
Are arcane and divine magic treated the same? For example, is arcane magic available or restricted?
2.2 Players and Setting
Are the rules applying to the players applied the same way for the whole setting? For example, divine magic might be restricted, banned, or controlled by law, or some powerful entity, yet players have access to the cleric class.
2.3 Locations and Periods
Are every continent/country/area subject to the same limitations? Are limitations somewhat different through times? Are spells permanent or eroding through time?
General knowledge about magic / expectations
2.4 Mobile and Immobile Magic
Is a spell as hard or easy to cast if it’s on a building’s foundation? On a ship? Is it easier to put a spell on immobile locations? On massive objects?
——————————
The objective of this thread is to build on the great ideas presented by numerous DMs on these boards and my own thoughts, to provide a comprehensive description of Low Magic options, as well as profit from the wisdom of players and DMs in identifying possible issues related to the application of these modifications.
If you don’t like ‘Low Magic’ settings, and all you really want to tell us is that you don’t think it should be done. We respect your opinion, but this is not the thread to present and defend it. We are looking for constructive ideas to support Low Magic games.
To help figure out where you’re coming from, please clarify between ‘what I think’, ‘what I’ve heard’, and ‘what I’ve experienced first hand as a player or a DM.’
You forgot the other dimension... Low Magic is also defined by what classes there are in the world.
If you look under 1.1, you'll see classes available. On that subject, the tested occult classes will also bring things to new places, in terms of subtle presence of magic. Perhaps it should be listed elsewhere?
dotting...
Looking forward to your comments Laurefindel. The ones I've read in the other threads on Low Magic were very thoughtful and helpful!
dot
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one have always interpreted "low magic" to mean "GM doesn't like players to have options/wants the players to struggle/or wants to play out actual medieval history using Pathfinder rules (this will end badly)". And I've found that most of the times, those are the real reasons for "low magic".
Looking forward to your comments Laurefindel. The ones I've read in the other threads on Low Magic were very thoughtful and helpful!
It's a pretty throughout and helpful guide to "what should I think about if I want to DM a low-magic game".
It is understood that like all creative processes, it should be a back-and-forth development process. Once everything has been decided, one should look at the whole picture asking "Do I like this?" and "will it be fun to play with this?". Since RPG are at the core a social activity, other questions like "are my players on board with this?" or "am I being a jerk?" needs answering too. One shouldn't be afraid to go back and fix what needs fixing, then reevaluate.
But that doesn't take anything away from the guide you posted. It's an awesome tool to have a discussion based on common grounds.
I always wanted to do a guide to low(er)-magic based on the style and intentions of the GM, but I had to admit, Pathfinder has become quite a large and intricate beast to tackle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one have always interpreted "low magic" to mean "GM doesn't like players to have options/wants the players to struggle/or wants to play out actual medieval history using Pathfinder rules (this will end badly)". And I've found that most of the times, those are the real reasons for "low magic".
I for one have always interpreted "low magic" to mean "Players want to think creatively to solve problems, facing opponents with mundane and natural attacks they can overcome rather than "supernatural" opponents requiring "supernatural" responses to win. In most cases, it isn't the GM that asks the table to play low magic, rather it is half our player group that is asking for such a game.
I for one have always interpreted "low magic" to mean "GM doesn't like players to have options/wants the players to struggle/or wants to play out actual medieval history using Pathfinder rules (this will end badly)". And I've found that most of the times, those are the real reasons for "low magic".I for one have always interpreted "low magic" to mean "Players want to think creatively to solve problems, facing opponents with mundane and natural attacks they can overcome rather than "supernatural" opponents requiring "supernatural" responses to win. In most cases, it isn't the GM that asks the table to play low magic, rather it is half our player group that is asking for such a game.
Fair enough. I've never had players go "Ya, this Roleplaying Game we're doing... ix nay on anything I can't just do outside." Different experiences I guess.
I for one have always interpreted "low magic" to mean "GM doesn't like players to have options/wants the players to struggle/or wants to play out actual medieval history using Pathfinder rules (this will end badly)". And I've found that most of the times, those are the real reasons for "low magic".
Certainly some people set out to do low magic campaigns for those reasons, sometimes it also works out that way due to how pathfinder is structured particularly at higher levels if the GM/ players didn't properly think about how their changes would impact the system. But a well run low magic campaign is just as viable as a more traditional pathfinder campaign. Others prefer lower levels of play, which is where E6 or similar things can be useful.
Fair enough. I've never had players go "Ya, this Roleplaying Game we're doing... ix nay on anything I can't just do outside." Different experiences I guess.I for one have always interpreted "low magic" to mean "GM doesn't like players to have options/wants the players to struggle/or wants to play out actual medieval history using Pathfinder rules (this will end badly)". And I've found that most of the times, those are the real reasons for "low magic".I for one have always interpreted "low magic" to mean "Players want to think creatively to solve problems, facing opponents with mundane and natural attacks they can overcome rather than "supernatural" opponents requiring "supernatural" responses to win. In most cases, it isn't the GM that asks the table to play low magic, rather it is half our player group that is asking for such a game.
Low magic is different than no magic. Limiting magic to a maximum of lvl 3 spells can be a form of a low magic campaign, but still one where magic is clearly present and fairly powerful, just cannot do the stuff you see in higher levels of magic.
E6 restricts stuff to just level 3 and lower spells, but I certainly wouldn't call it low magic. Especially since that's in range for the all important Craft Wondrous Item and the less important Craft Magic Arms and Armor. I mean if you are going 1-20 and only sticking to 1-3rd level spells, ya that would be pretty low on magic, but in such a setting all that does is "soft ban" certain classes. And suddenly everyone is a Summoner.
E6 restricts stuff to just level 3 and lower spells, but I certainly wouldn't call it low magic. Especially since that's in range for the all important Craft Wondrous Item and the less important Craft Magic Arms and Armor. I mean if you are going 1-20 and only sticking to 1-3rd level spells, ya that would be pretty low on magic, but in such a setting all that does is "soft ban" certain classes. And suddenly everyone is a Summoner.
Different definitions of low magic then. I consider E6 to be low magic, though certainly not at the bottom end of low magic.
Low magic is different than no magic. Limiting magic to a maximum of lvl 3 spells can be a form of a low magic campaign, but still one where magic is clearly present and fairly powerful, just cannot do the stuff you see in higher levels of magic.
Our low magic games are indeed low magic, rather than no magic, still the bulk of opponents are not supernatural, more often giants, trolls, orcs, NPCs. There are villainous spellcasters, though still limited to the maximum levels of spells allowed in such a game. We've played with the idea of using magic causing taint that affects the health of spellcasters - eventually potentially killing them for too frequent use, or too powerful of spells used. There are some low level supernatural opponents though these are rare and often the highlight encounter in game session.
Low magic is different than no magic. Limiting magic to a maximum of lvl 3 spells can be a form of a low magic campaign, but still one where magic is clearly present and fairly powerful, just cannot do the stuff you see in higher levels of magic.Our low magic games are indeed low magic, rather than no magic, still the bulk of opponents are not supernatural, more often giants, trolls, orcs, NPCs. There are villainous spellcasters, though still limited to the maximum levels of spells allowed in such a game. We've played with the idea of using magic causing taint that affects the health of spellcasters - eventually potentially killing them for too frequent use, or too powerful of spells used. There are some low level supernatural opponents though these are rare and often the highlight encounter in game session.
Are PC spellcasters allowed? If so I'd have a hard time considering this low magic, unless there's no magic items/crafting feats, the taint makes spellcasting essentially a story mechanic rather than a game mechanic, or casters cap out at 6th level or lower spells over levels 1-20 (although again, this is really more a soft ban on classes and suddenly summoners again).
Though I suppose this does highlight the need to get a more defined meaning of "low magic".
It depends, our group has run 2 or 3 low magic games. In one game, no spellcasters were allowed. In another only half casters with the most powerful being a bard or inquisitor. In other all classes allowed using E6. I find the half caster game the most enjoyable, still capping levels around 9th. Note: we've only ever run short campaigns, no more than 9 levels of play from start to finish, usually 5 levels worth.
Also note: even in our full magic games, we don't have magic shops with premade items. Everything has to be crafted by special order, and most powerful magic items are not usually available except in the largest populated areas. So obviously magic shops don't exist in our low magic games either. Most magic items are acquired as treasure found as encounters or in dungeons. Though they items seem random, they are not, all items are designed to work for specific classes in the party.
The objective of this thread is to build on the great ideas presented by numerous DMs on these boards and my own thoughts, to provide a comprehensive description of Low Magic options, as well as profit from the wisdom of players and DMs in identifying possible issues related to the application of these modifications.If you don’t like ‘Low Magic’ settings, and all you really want to tell us is that you don’t think it should be done. We respect your opinion, but this is not the thread to present and defend it. We are looking for constructive ideas to support Low Magic games.
To help figure out where you’re coming from, please clarify between ‘what I think’, ‘what I’ve heard’, and ‘what I’ve experienced first hand as a player or a DM.’
I would ask you make sure your comments respect the guidelines I've mentioned in the OP. for the most part they do, but not always very explicitly :)
Thanks!
If I remember correcty, Monte Cooks' "Iron Heroes" might be a good resource for GM's looking to game this way.
Acana Evolved might be more of a "slightly less magic" rather than a "low magic" approach. Spells are considerably weaker than Pathfinder standard but have an interesting gradiated approach.
Indeed, IH has been mentioned a few times in the other threads I've linked in the OP. But is IH to be considered PF? If one wants to stay in Pathfinder, what inspirations can be drawn from Iron Heroes, in terms of Spells, Gear and Creatures?
about the 'lowest' magic thing I've done is ban resurrection spells, and gotten rid of Ye Olde Magicke Shoppe. Magic crafting feats other than Craft Wand, Staff, or Brew Potion need to be taught by ancient sages or decoded in musty old scrolls. Sure, they get them for free (as in not spending a precious feat) should they succeed a sky-high Spellcraft skill check, but by the time they've got the Spellcraft to make it, they're usually high enough level for it to start making more sense. Made magic items they found more valuable, since I specifically designed the weapons for the characters involved.
Granted, I also bring average saves to the game, instead of just good/bad (ripped right out of the Wheel of Time), and gave classes a built in defense bonus. Plus, I totally ripped Kolokotroni's (sp?) idea for the characters getting inherent bonuses as they level.
Worked well enough. Had to make a few tweaks to some baddies I underestimated (after having already tweaked them once), but, eh. Had one player comment it was on the higher-end of low magic. I thought it was more upper-middle magic myself, lol.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't have a big problem with Ye Olde Magic Shoppe. I actually like the curio's boutique where local wizards get their pickled basilisk eye or whatever spell component they need. That this place sell potions, a few scrolls, half a dozen magical rings and trinkets and one or two magic swords doesn't bother me.
However, I dislike the Magic-Mart "if it exist in the multiverse, we'll deliver it within 30 days!" type of magic shop where characters can treat the magic item section of the core rulebook as an online catalog.
Magic can still have a place in a lower magic setting. All I ever wished to do in my games was to turn the magic dial from "9" to "6" or "7".
If you want to limit gear, throw the big 6 items into effects that players buy with WBL points on level up. Call it "training" for martials or "enchantments" for casters. Once the big 6 items are out of the way, you can just remove item crafting and call everything artifacts.
There Ye'old magic shop is no longer needed and people can actually play martials against somewhat relevant CR foes. I reject the idea that anyone NEEDS any items beyond the big 6.
Personally, I don't have a big problem with Ye Olde Magic Shoppe. I actually like the curio's boutique where local wizards get their pickled basilisk eye or whatever spell component they need. That this place sell potions, a few scrolls, half a dozen magical rings and trinkets and one or two magic swords doesn't bother me.
However, I dislike the Magic-Mart "if it exist in the multiverse, we'll deliver it within 30 days!" type of magic shop where characters can treat the magic item section of the core rulebook as an online catalog.
Magic can still have a place in a lower magic setting. All I ever wished to do in my games was to turn the magic dial from "9" to "6" or "7".
The Olde Magick Shoppe has been mentioned multiple times, and is often the main thing people associate with Low Magic. As Artemis mentioned, if you don't tie it to crafting limitations and, in my opinion, demographics, you'll have coherence issues. Of course, there is also the "sold at 50 %" thing that rubs me wrong, though I'll admit, you can sink in minutia if you don't make such simplifications.
As Laurefindel has described even the concept of Magic Shop has different levels of application. In one game, where things got too complicated to my liking, I simply told the players to assume they had reached WBL during the downtime, and had enough time to find whatever item they wanted (this was no Low Magic game, of course). That was probably a 10 on Laurefindel's scale.
I'm a proponent of low-magic settings (I prefer playing in them and I prefer running them). For me, the way it intersects with PCs is predominantly about gear - as a general rule I dont enjoy games where the party has more than one magic item per PC. I like them to be powerful and rare, largely because that's how they are in the stories I read.
Although it's not my preference, I dont really mind if casters dominate the setting or if there are lots of supernatural enemies around. To me the essential component of "low magic" is "not many magical items".
I think your point 2.2 regarding players and setting is an important distinction too. It seems to me that most PF players prefer a more simulationist approach, whereas that doesnt appeal to me at all. As such, even when my games are restricted (like 'no wizards' or something) if a player came to me and said he wanted to be a wizard, I'd probably find a way to incorporate that. I expect PCs to be the exceptions to the rules in all kinds of ways and access to otherwise 'forbidden' classes can easily be one of those exceptions.
If you want to limit gear, throw the big 6 items into effects that players buy with WBL points on level up. Call it "training" for martials or "enchantments" for casters. Once the big 6 items are out of the way, you can just remove item crafting and call everything artifacts.
There Ye'old magic shop is no longer needed and people can actually play martials against somewhat relevant CR foes. I reject the idea that anyone NEEDS any items beyond the big 6.
Yes, Big 6 limitations is also one of the main components associated with Low Magic. Yet, a lot of people like to keep the powerful ring or sword, though they want it to be about much more than blanket bonuses. Legacy items, or variations on the same theme, are usually mentioned during these conversations.
Removing magic shops is an interesting idea, but how would such a change impact the other dimensions of low magic? You mentioned the crafting feats. Other things? In the discussions on Low Magic, some people have claimed that martial characters need the items to keep up with casters (whatever is meant by keeping up and whatever assumptions are made about the goal of the game). Flat bonuses are only part of the magic item story. What about flying items, or other "utility" items. Do you feel there would need to be other changes along the removal of the magic shop?
I think your point 2.2 regarding players and setting is an important distinction too. It seems to me that most PF players prefer a more simulationist approach, whereas that doesnt appeal to me at all. As such, even when my games are restricted (like 'no wizards' or something) if a player came to me and said he wanted to be a wizard, I'd probably find a way to incorporate that. I expect PCs to be the exceptions to the rules in all kinds of ways and access to otherwise 'forbidden' classes can easily be one of those exceptions.
That's an interesting point, especially considering how some DMs have also mentioned the opposite distinctions, where there are powerful casters, and they are very rare. In some cases, players did not have access to those classes (kind of an underdog (or Conan?)theme).
I think your point 2.2 regarding players and setting is an important distinction too. It seems to me that most PF players prefer a more simulationist approach, whereas that doesnt appeal to me at all. As such, even when my games are restricted (like 'no wizards' or something) if a player came to me and said he wanted to be a wizard, I'd probably find a way to incorporate that. I expect PCs to be the exceptions to the rules in all kinds of ways and access to otherwise 'forbidden' classes can easily be one of those exceptions.That's an interesting point, especially considering how some DMs have also mentioned the opposite distinctions, where there are powerful casters, and they are very rare. In some cases, players did not have access to those classes (kind of an underdog (or Conan?)theme).
It's a truism that on the internet no matter what your view there'll be someone vehemently holding the opposing one. :)
FWIW, I dont mind playing in a game where the baddies can use magic but we cant. The-rules-as-the-laws-of-nature approach is one of the things that jars with my playstyle and pathfinder. PF seems to me to be geared towards those with a simulationist bent - monsters and PCs being built the same being the most obvious example. But also it seems implicit that, if wizards are not available for PCs, then they're not available for NPCs either.
That wasnt how things were done "back in my day" and I've never been able to make the mental leap.
I think your point 2.2 regarding players and setting is an important distinction too. It seems to me that most PF players prefer a more simulationist approach, whereas that doesnt appeal to me at all. As such, even when my games are restricted (like 'no wizards' or something) if a player came to me and said he wanted to be a wizard, I'd probably find a way to incorporate that. I expect PCs to be the exceptions to the rules in all kinds of ways and access to otherwise 'forbidden' classes can easily be one of those exceptions.That's an interesting point, especially considering how some DMs have also mentioned the opposite distinctions, where there are powerful casters, and they are very rare. In some cases, players did not have access to those classes (kind of an underdog (or Conan?)theme).It's a truism that on the internet no matter what your view there'll be someone vehemently holding the opposing one. :)
FWIW, I dont mind playing in a game where the baddies can use magic but we cant. The-rules-as-the-laws-of-nature approach is one of the things that jars with my playstyle and pathfinder. PF seems to me to be geared towards those with a simulationist bent - monsters and PCs being built the same being the most obvious example. But also it seems implicit that, if wizards are not available for PCs, then they're not available for NPCs either.
That wasnt how things were done "back in my day" and I've never been able to make the mental leap.
I agree. So there is two ways to see this Player and Setting Low Magic Distinction. One is players have access to classes beyond what's out in the world, and the other is players don't have access to some of the classes in the world. Mostly, we're talking about full casters here.
Some have mentioned also that they develop their setting with PC classes as exceptions; the greatest majority of their NPCs only have access to NPC classes.
If you want to limit gear, throw the big 6 items into effects that players buy with WBL points on level up. Call it "training" for martials or "enchantments" for casters. Once the big 6 items are out of the way, you can just remove item crafting and call everything artifacts.
There Ye'old magic shop is no longer needed and people can actually play martials against somewhat relevant CR foes. I reject the idea that anyone NEEDS any items beyond the big 6.
Yes, Big 6 limitations is also one of the main components associated with Low Magic. Yet, a lot of people like to keep the powerful ring or sword, though they want it to be about much more than blanket bonuses. Legacy items, or variations on the same theme, are usually mentioned during these conversations.
Removing magic shops is an interesting idea, but how would such a change impact the other dimensions of low magic? You mentioned the crafting feats. Other things? In the discussions on Low Magic, some people have claimed that martial characters need the items to keep up with casters (whatever is meant by keeping up and whatever assumptions are made about the goal of the game). Flat bonuses are only part of the magic item story. What about flying items, or other "utility" items. Do you feel there would need to be other changes along the removal of the magic shop?
Personally, I detest low-magic, but I do understand the hatred towards the magic treadmill that comes from needing to keep the big 6 where they need to be.
Flat bonuses are what martials NEED to be relevant in their most critical areas. Things like flying and other utility can be provided by the caster's spells. If you are truly doing low magic, then such items should not be needed, because low magic = low level. If you want low magic at higher levels, then don't play this game. Even if you try to force it, it would require massive rewrites when better free/cheap systems do exist.
Martials do not keep up with casters. They need items to keep up with martial monsters who don't have gear. Casters do not actually need gear at all. Gear gives them +6 to mental stat items when spells only go up to +4. Casters do not need AC because they have other defenses. Casters do not need to-hit boost because they are either hitting touch AC, using spells like true strike, or going after saving throws / casting spells with no possible defense. Casters can make fine use of their gear, but the presence or lack does not make or break them like it does with martials.
Flat bonuses are what martials NEED to be relevant in their most critical areas. Things like flying and other utility can be provided by the caster's spells. If you are truly doing low magic, then such items should not be needed, because low magic = low level. If you want low magic at higher levels, then don't play this game. Even if you try to force it, it would require massive rewrites when better free/cheap systems do exist.
I think if you want to restrict magic items, some kind of inherent bonuses system is a very good approach to take in Pathfinder (personally, I think some kind of level-based ability to overcome DR is a good thing to adopt too).
"Why play pathfinder?" is something people often ask when low-magic games come up but it's worth bearing in mind that oftentimes the DM has more leeway with designing the setting than with choosing the rules. I've certainly played in groups where one or more of the players had no interest in learning a new system but were happy to tinker with one they understood. If you have the desire to run low-magic game, but have people in your group like that then it may well be PF is the best option (even if there are other 'technically superior' game systems for low magic campaigns out there).
Flat bonuses are what martials NEED to be relevant in their most critical areas. Things like flying and other utility can be provided by the caster's spells. If you are truly doing low magic, then such items should not be needed, because low magic = low level. If you want low magic at higher levels, then don't play this game. Even if you try to force it, it would require massive rewrites when better free/cheap systems do exist.
There are two things you've mentioned I would like to explore: whether low magic needs to equate low level, and whether the flat bonuses are sorely needed for martial classes.
About low magic = low level: what makes it so? Again, there are many ways to see low magic. I'm interested in clarifying what, in your opinion, low magic is, and how this requires keeping levels low.
About flat bonuses, is a +X bonus making that much of a difference that many other things need to be rewritten? Can you give me examples?
DR is another classic bump for Low Magic. Some have suggested doing away with it entirely, others have offered to change DR/Magic for DR/'some special material', while others have also mentioned not to worry about it, and let MW and GMW be used to make weapons magic (though that doesn't make them work for DR/silver, as stated in the spell's description).
Another bump less often mentioned is immaterial opponents. My suggestion for those is to consider making some material play the role of magic, especially if one wants to keep those monsters and remove MW and GMW spells.
There are two things you've mentioned I would like to explore: whether low magic needs to equate low level, and whether the flat bonuses are sorely needed for martial classes.
About low magic = low level: what makes it so? Again, there are many ways to see low magic. I'm interested in clarifying what, in your opinion, low magic is, and how this requires keeping levels low.
About flat bonuses, is a +X bonus making that much of a difference that many other things need to be rewritten? Can you give me examples?
Higher levels start demanding magic. You need to just throw out most of the bestiary monsters for having encounter shattering SLAs that can only be countered by magic. Then martial combat itself starts demanding magic at the most basic level; HP. You are expected to lose most of your HP every fight or even every full attack. Without magical healing you just can't go more than one encounter every month. Now you could just ignore CR, but when your lvl 36 fighter is getting destroyed by a CR 14 white dragon, you'll feel downright silly.
It does not really matter how you define low magic, none of it works with the listed CRs, and the game is built around them.
The biggest flat bonus need is defense. AC really does not scale outside of magic much at all. There becomes no point in wearing armor when foes auto-hit.
But you could ignore all of that and CR, but you end up with ridiculously over leveled heros who cannot handle encounters a third of their APL. Unbalanced games rapidly devolve into rocket tag, which in nearly all definitions of low magic means new characters every session or trivially easy encounters.
Unless you are planning to run an existing adventure written specifically for Pathfinder, dependency on the Big 6 is a bit of a fallacy.
Big 6 are necessary to keep up with CR.
Big 6 are necessary to keep up with published adventures.
Big 6 are necessary to compare your character to "default Pathfinder".
But for a home-brewed game, in a home-brewed (or adapted) setting and with a GM who isn't a tyrannical bastard, the Big 6 are not necessary to run the game efficiently.
Challenges in a low magic setting need to be adapted. Critters with high saves are expected to resist magic efficiently. Monsters with DR are harder to bring down than in a comparable high-magic setting. Flight becomes a much more powerful ability, and so forth. But that's ok because that's probably what you're looking for in a low-magic game anyways.
Adjusting your expectation of your character's abilities and of the extremely versatile toolkit that is spellcasting is part of the low-magic game, but if the GM does its part and lowers the challenge of its beasties, things even out fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that the game revolves around CR. CR is a scale. Scales can be translated.
It means that not 100% of the monster manual will be usable. Considering that not all 100% of the magic item section or of the spell section will be used either, it's not unfair. The game doesn't have to be used in whole; very few games ever do so anyways.
And if a CR 15 dragon TPKs a party of 20th level characters, then CR 15 becomes a new benchmark. There nothing silly there. Not more than a medium-sized fighter slaying a Colossal dragon with a sword barely long enough to pierce through its epidermis anyways...
It's all in the expectation of how super you want your character to be, but there are no ways that you can disguise a high-magic game as a low-magic one; it needs to become another game. This is perfectly possible to do with Pathfinder, but I can understand that some people will prefer if the book bares another name.
And here is where even the slightest amount of GM lazyness can make low-magic appear as, "haha players look at you struggle while the enemies wield cosmic power you were never expected to be able to face!"
"haha players look at you struggle while the enemies wield cosmic power you were never expected to be able to face!"
I did say if your GM isn't a tyrannical bastard. A decent GM will know when to tone things down on the fly or at the very least won't brag "haha, puny PCs" about it.
or that's part of the adventure and the players need to understand that this villain cannot be beaten with the resources they have. Then I'd hope that the GM left a way for the PCs to fall back and return with a better plan/macguffin/army. Otherwise we're back to the tyrannical bastard.
Higher levels start demanding magic. You need to just throw out most of the bestiary monsters for having encounter shattering SLAs that can only be countered by magic. Then martial combat itself starts demanding magic at the most basic level; HP. You are expected to lose most of your HP every fight or even every full attack. Without magical healing you just can't go more than one encounter every month. Now you could just ignore CR, but when your lvl 36 fighter is getting destroyed by a CR 14 white dragon, you'll feel downright silly.It does not really matter how you define low magic, none of it works with the listed CRs, and the game is built around them.
The biggest flat bonus need is defense. AC really does not scale outside of magic much at all. There becomes no point in wearing armor when foes auto-hit.
I think you're exaggerating a little with that one third statement and using level 36 fighters to make a point. Yet, it remains true that CR gauging is a tricky balancing act, especially at higher levels, and, I would argue, for any given game, regardless of gear access.
Regarding AC, the usual sources of bonuses are enchantments from shields and armour, deflection rings, natural armour amulets, and Dex belts. Lots of Big 6 items in that lot. Yet, in the high level game (level 14) I DMed, with few magic items (three big ones, plus 5,000 GP to spend on equipment in general, see recruitment thread for details), there was no real issue with low AC, as players tend to favour offence and not defence (to a point). To be honest, I also changed the ability progression and the initial point-buy. So in that context, making a few changes to bring Gear down a few notches, with generosity in other areas, my in-game experience was that things worked fine at level 14, for a party of four.
But you could ignore all of that and CR, but you end up with ridiculously over leveled heros who cannot handle encounters a third of their APL. Unbalanced games rapidly devolve into rocket tag, which in nearly all definitions of low magic means new characters every session or trivially easy encounters.
I agree with you that if you bring it down, on every dimension, and keep playing modules and APs as is, using the CR system, then you're straying dangerously far from balance and risk more and more PC death, especially at higher levels. But, from what I've read by other DMs toying with Low Magic, that's not what they are aiming for either.
I disagree that the game revolves around CR. CR is a scale. Scales can be translated.
It means that not 100% of the monster manual will be usable. Considering that not all 100% of the magic item section or of the spell section will be used either, it's not unfair. The game doesn't have to be used in whole; very few games ever do so anyways.
And if a CR 15 dragon TPKs a party of 20th level characters, then CR 15 becomes a new benchmark. There nothing silly there. Not more than a medium-sized fighter slaying a Colossal dragon with a sword barely long enough to pierce through its epidermis anyways...
It's all in the expectation of how super you want your character to be, but there are no ways that you can disguise a high-magic game as a low-magic one; it needs to become another game. This is perfectly possible to do with Pathfinder, but I can understand that some people will prefer if the book bares another name.
I agree.
From what I've read, DMs who wish to play a Low Magic version of Pathfinder usually wish to use the system to build a different world and tell a different story than the ones that stem naturally from the complete use of Pathfinder. Expectations differ, and the DM needs to be clear about what he's going for and what he's changing. Which is why I've build this chart and am looking for feedback to improve it, so that people have a clearer idea of what they mean when they say 'Low Magic'.
Three of the reasons why I prefer to do it in Pathfinder is familiarity with the system, availability of free online references, and the capacity of finding players easily for PbP.
I run a low-magic PF game, and had to do a LOT of tweaking to make it work. I did it because I wanted to run a world where magic is drying up. Arcane spell-casters are rare. Being able to create your own magical items has become even rarer, requiring that one pass a Great Trial in order to unlock the skills as well as any spells of lvl 6 or higher.
Magical items are available to find via adventuring. They are not available to order or purchase at Ye Olde Magic Shoppe - only items like potions, some scrolls, lower power wands, etc., can be purchased. I.E., magic is rare.
It has been a challenge, though, as I have to constantly tweak things in the system to make it viable. (Bypassing DR doesn't require a "+3 or higher", etc. As long as the PCs have a magic or magic equivalent weapon, it can affect the monsters.)
Having an arcane caster on the PCs side gives them incredible power vs most NPCs and mooks since magic is so rare. Martials have been very important in the campaign. The Sorcerer wanted to go Dragon Disciple gish, so he, too, is more combat/melee focused. And the Wizard contributes immensely with battlefield control, even while butting up against the difficulty in gaining more spells and/or any limitations on his casting.
I prefer low-magic both as GM and as Player because it makes my magical items rarer and more valuable - well worth the risk in order to acquire. My Players seem to be enjoying it as well, but only because they have bought into the campaign world where magic is drying up. And they do have the option to try and restore it - as an epic quest line of its own!
Unless you are planning to run an existing adventure written specifically for Pathfinder, dependency on the Big 6 is a bit of a fallacy.
Big 6 are necessary to keep up with CR.
Big 6 are necessary to keep up with published adventures.
Big 6 are necessary to compare your character to "default Pathfinder".
I wonder to what extent these are absolutely true. And if they are, then what various steps need to be taken to alleviate this need and use published adventures (though in a different setting with different expectations)?
Saving throws seem like a big item IMO. Others?
Oh, and at what level would you say the Big 6 become absolutely necessary?
I run a low-magic PF game, and had to do a LOT of tweaking to make it work. I did it because I wanted to run a world where magic is drying up. Arcane spell-casters are rare. Being able to create your own magical items has become even rarer, requiring that one pass a Great Trial in order to unlock the skills as well as any spells of lvl 6 or higher.
Magical items are available to find via adventuring. They are not available to order or purchase at Ye Olde Magic Shoppe - only items like potions, some scrolls, lower power wands, etc., can be purchased. I.E., magic is rare.
It has been a challenge, though, as I have to constantly tweak things in the system to make it viable. (Bypassing DR doesn't require a "+3 or higher", etc. As long as the PCs have a magic or magic equivalent weapon, it can affect the monsters.)
Having an arcane caster on the PCs side gives them incredible power vs most NPCs and mooks since magic is so rare. Martials have been very important in the campaign. The Sorcerer wanted to go Dragon Disciple gish, so he, too, is more combat/melee focused. And the Wizard contributes immensely with battlefield control, even while butting up against the difficulty in gaining more spells and/or any limitations on his casting.
I prefer low-magic both as GM and as Player because it makes my magical items rarer and more valuable - well worth the risk in order to acquire. My Players seem to be enjoying it as well, but only because they have bought into the campaign world where magic is drying up. And they do have the option to try and restore it - as an epic quest line of its own!
Very helpful examples. Thanks! Seems like DR was the main thing to make adjustments for. Any other important changes you can think of?
Very helpful examples. Thanks! Seems like DR was the main thing to make adjustments for. Any other important changes you can think of?
For the PCs, I had to eliminate the Create Magical Item feats. Otherwise, why couldn't they make their own? One player was planning on making his own Belts of Strength/Physical Prowess/whathaveyou - because they "worked for his build". That was a bit of having to hold my ground, but I let him know that these feats would become available IF he successfully passes The Great Trial. It mainly bumped them up by about 7 levels from when they normally become available in vanilla PF.
So needing to remove the Create feats and DR are the primary elements that need to be looked at for anyone wanting to run a low-magic PF rather than go Iron Heroes.
Thanks, Dreaming Warforged, for asking! And for the Definitions breakdown! Very good guidance.
|
For me, when I say "low magic" I'm usually trying to convey some or all of the following:
1) No magic marts. I don't even like these in most mid magic type campaigns. They're great for Forgotten Realms or Eberron, but the don't even seem to fit the expectations of Golarion, let alone any setting where magic is less ubiquitous.
2) Going hand in hand with number 1, no magic marts generally means less WBL.
3) No/limited access to full casting classes, like Wizards and Clerics. I may not remove then completely, but there might be 5 of them in the whole world, instead of them being 5% of the population. There will likely be in-game hurdles to playing one of these classes.
4) Environmental challenges will be more common. As a GM, I'm more likely to use things like daunting cliffs, eel infested waters, erupting fissures, etc. when I know they'll pose a meaningful hazard as opposed to something that exists soley for the purpose of forcing a small amount of magical resource use.
Unless you are planning to run an existing adventure written specifically for Pathfinder, dependency on the Big 6 is a bit of a fallacy.
Big 6 are necessary to keep up with CR.
Big 6 are necessary to keep up with published adventures.
Big 6 are necessary to compare your character to "default Pathfinder".
I wonder to what extent these are absolutely true. And if they are, then what various steps need to be taken to alleviate this need and use published adventures (though in a different setting with different expectations)?
Saving throws seem like a big item IMO. Others?
Oh, and at what level would you say the Big 6 become absolutely necessary?
I've done a ton of work on this, its way more then just saving throws.
The math matters. Particularly when dealing with non-human/humanish opponents. Monsters dont generally use equipment, but their stats are scaled towards characters who have big six items.
Basically anything after 7th or 8th level will really start to feel the loss of AC, To hit, Saving throws, DCs of abilities etc. By 10th level, the same group of characters vs the same group of enemies but without big six items will really struggle, possibly outright fail depending on optimization levels. And its not a simple matter of scaling things up or down CR wise. AC for instance, basically stops going up. The heavy armored fighter might as well be naked after mid levels if he doesnt have magical items that enhance his ac (3 of the big six).
What I have done is effectively create a replacement system, where players just choose from these +Xs as they level up as is appropriate to level. This plus a system of adding a set of abilities to each character lets me replace the vast majority or the player's wealth in magic items. Leaving them an option as opposed to a necesity. PCs in my game can generally expect a couple magic items over their entire career, that they will keep with them the enitre time. They might for instance get a magic sword, but it will have a backstory, a name, and a specfic affect (Ignus the flaming blade of [insert legendary hero here]). No +x, that comes from the abilities they select from.
In this game, magic items (besides wands, potions and scrolls) cant be crafted by normal means and priceless artifacts. I also only include them where it makes sense for the story, and because the player has abilities to make up for their lack, it isnt a downgrade to their capability.
It goes a long way to make money a story choice, not a requirement, and to make magic items be more meaningful and integrated into the characters overall story. Gandalf didnt trade in glamdring for a +3 glamdring after helm's deep. I want that sort of effect with magic items in my game, without hampering the players unduly. There are some minor issues with overcoming dr, but generally, this can be overcome by actually carrying alternate material weapons since the fighter is just as good or very nearly as good with his main longsword, as he is with a cold iron longword or a silver longsword etc, because the +x is built into him and not the weapon.
*blink*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of defining low magic. I think rather then defining the effect, one should define the intent.
What are you trying to achieve with low magic? In my mind there are 3 areas a gm is trying to adjust.
1. The feel of the world.
Many gms dont like the idea of magic marts, or players who light up like a christmas tree under detect magic etc. They also often envision a world that is more game of thrones or lord of the rings then it is dnd/pathfinder. This is by far the most common stated goal in 'low magic' games. But often, there is another motive or two. The biggest symptom of this is when a gm lists out what isn't an option under his campaign, without offering some way to make up for the listed lacks.
IE No magic marts, and magic items are rare, without an explanation of how the lost power, or lost customization (a archer fighter with a magic great axe hasn't gained very much) will be countered. This is a very big red flag to me when a gm is describing their game. As I mentioned, the stated goal is fine, and depends on taste, but if you just take, and dont give back as a gm, usually you are actually seeking one of the other two things.
2. Curtailing narrative power.
Magic means narrative power. This isn't about killing bad guys, the dumb fighter with the sharp bit of metal is plenty good at that. This is about altering the circumstances of the encounter, adventure, or campaign. Magic, both in item, and in straight spell/supernatural ability form has the ability to take some of the story telling out of the GM's hands and put it in the players hands. Sometimes this is small scale, IE, improving the party's situation in an encounter, such as giving the fighter flying to help deal with air bound enemies. Narrative power in this form doesn't directly help overcome the danger in an encounter, it just alters the circumstances.
Then there is the middle scale of narrative power. Altering the nature of an adventure. If you need to find a specific person, and the wizard successfully scry's him and in the process finds out where that person is, the nature of the adventure, which might have involved numerous encounters hunting for information, has now skiped damn near to the end. Enchanting the unhelpful noble, or any number of things and drastically mess with the story. Where as not magical means generally oppose and overcome challenges, magical things can alter the circumstances making the means by which the challenge is overcome partially or completely trivial.
Then there is the big scale narrative power. Easy example is lord of the rings, if elrond was a high level wizard, the lord of the rings takes 30 seconds. He had been to mount doom before. Grab the halfling, teleport, drop ring, teleport, yay, evil defeated.
Now as a gm all of these can often be managed to a degree. But it usually puts you in direct opposition with the player, and can create a negative environment. So it is often a goal of 'low magic' rules to simply take this sort of thing out of the equation entirely.
3. Curbing Direct power
In addition to magic helping alter the circumstances of challenges, it can also overcome them directly. Magic items make character more potent, certain spells can at certain levels, wreck some serious face in encounters. Cutting magic in all its forms can drastically scale back how powerful your characters are.
This is probably (in my mind) the least noble of the goals in 'low magic'. Not that wanting to reign in super munchkin players isn't sometimes neccessary, the issue is usually one of honesty. If you want a low powered game, you should say so, instead of hiding it under the guise of something else. Most players are willing to scale back things, without having to do something so drastic as gutting magic from a system that is utterly reliant on it. That isn't to say a low magic low powered game isn't fun, but people should know what they are getting into. If you just say low magic, and someone optimizes a low magic character, you havent achieved your goals anyway, and you again can get into an atagonistic gm vs player mentality.
No matter what your stated or actual goals are I think the most important thing to asses when doing 'low magic' is to know and understand what those goals are and how to best approach the issue.
For instance, I am working on a way to curtail the narrative power of magic in my game, but I recognize that if i simply removed all the narrative altering spells from the game, I'd be drastically hampering some of the fun parts of playing a spellcaster in pathfinder. So, I am redesigning magic, ground up, including altering classes, to be less narratively powerful, but still able to contribute to situations. I take, but I also give back, because if I just take out all the good spells, a wizard, for whom most of the 'stuff' they get is spells, is sort of left high and dry. And I dont want to punish a player for making a specific character choice, if I dont want that character choice, it wont be in the options, and I will give them different options instead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few ways to get a lower-magic feel to a campaign without restricting spellcaster levels or monsters encountered:
1. In general, magic items are pried from the hands of your dead enemies, found as parts of a long-forgotten treasure, or found in other similar ways. You don't get them from the express lane. And enemies should USE these items...don't have them keep their sword +3 in a chest while they swing a rusty piece of tin at the PCs. The magic mart is all but eliminated...and when they exist, their inventory tends to be almost exclusively one-use items such as scrolls and potions.
2. The only item creation feats allowed adventurers are Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion. There are NPCs that can create other magical items, but they are very rare, and they devote their lives to crafting these items. It's not something they do in between adventuring sessions.
- As something of a balance, healing potions can be created for any of the healing spells (Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, Cure Critical Wounds, and Heal), despite the fact that they might exceed the usual spell level 3 limitation for potions. The cost to create healing potions is also greatly reduced, using the formula [spell level x caster level x 10].
3. All the workarounds for spellcasters to exceed their normal number of spells memorized per day are eliminated, with the exception of bonus spells granted by Intelligence.
4. Likewise, all methods for prepared spellcasters to cast spontaneously are eliminated. As are all methods for spontaneous spellcasters to gain new spells known.
- Spontaneous spellcasters gain access to new spell levels at the same rate as their prepared counterparts.
5. There is no concentration check for damage taken while attempting to cast a spell. Even a single point of damage disrupts the spell.
6. Spells take 10 minutes per spell level per spell to prepare. Cantrips take 1 minute to prepare each. The arcane discovery Fast Study is eliminated.
This wouldn't really take it down to LOW magic, but it would bring it down to a more REASONABLE level of magic, in my less-than-humble opinion. It also brings it a bit closer to the pre-3.0 editions.
I've done a ton of work on this, its way more then just saving throws.The math matters. Particularly when dealing with non-human/humanish opponents. Monsters dont generally use equipment, but their stats are scaled towards characters who have big six items.
Basically anything after 7th or 8th level will really start to feel the loss of AC, To hit, Saving throws, DCs of abilities etc. By 10th level, the same group of characters vs the same group of enemies but without big six items will really struggle, possibly outright fail depending on optimization levels. And its not a simple matter of scaling things up or down CR wise. AC for instance, basically stops going up. The heavy armored fighter might as well be naked after mid levels if he doesnt have magical items that enhance his ac (3 of the big six).
...
Thanks K! Very relevant information. Did you by any chance post this system somewhere?